One of the customs held and upheld by Pedobaptist churches, which Baptists seriously condemn, is infant baptism. It is practiced by both Roman Catholics and Protestants as a religious institution; and though not held as sacredly, or practiced as widely as formerly, it still prevails to a wide extent throughout the Christian world. And yet it was not instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, nor known in the primitive churches, and has neither sanction nor recognition in the Word of God. It is for this reason that Baptists utterly reject and condemn the custom, as not simply useless and without authority, but as a most pernicious and hurtful usage; that it is injurious both to the child that receives it, and to the church which allows it, can be easily shown. Baptism before faith, and without a profession it, contradicts and [p. 130] does violence to all New Testament teaching.  
not of scriptural authority
 
Now, that infant baptism is not of Scriptural authority, and was not known in the first Christian ages, nearly all its advocates and defenders have with considerable candor admitted. Only a few of their historians and scholars can be cited here.
 
Dr. William Wall, a learned Divine of the English Church, who wrote the “History of Infant Baptism,” a work so able that the clergy in convocation assembled gave him a vote of thanks for his defense of the custom, says: “Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of any infants.” Hist. Inf. Bap., Intro., pp. 1, 55.
 
Thomas Fuller, the historian, says: “We do freely confess there is neither express precept nor precedent in the New Testament for the Baptism of Infants.” Infants’ Advoc., pp. 71, 150.
 
Luther says: “It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the [p. 131] first Christians after the Apostles.” Vanity of Inf. Bap., Part II., p. 8.
 
Neander says: “Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive of baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from Apostolic institution.” Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 311; Plant. and Train., Vol. I., p. 222.
 
Professor Lange says: “All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the Apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament.” Inf. Baptism, p. 101.
 
Professor Jacobi says: “Infant baptism was established neither by Christ, nor by the Apostles.” Art. Bap., Kitto’s Cycl. Bib. Lit.
 
Doctor Hanna says: “Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants.” North Brit. Review, Aug., 1852.
 
Professor Hagenbach says: “The passages from Scripture cited in favor of infant baptism as a usage of the primitive church are doubtful and prove nothing.” Hist. Dict., pp. 190, 193.
 
Bishop Burnett, Baxter, Goodwin, [p. 132] Limborch, Celarius, Field, and many others bear similar testimony.
 
when did it rise?
 
Since the New Testament knows nothing of infant baptism, and since it was neither instituted by Christ, nor practiced by His Apostles, what was its origin, and when did it come into use?
 
Tertullian is the first who mentions the custom, and he opposes it. This was at the close of the second century, or about a. d. 200. His opposition to it proves two things: First, that it was in occasional use, at least. Second, that it was of recent origin, since had it been long used some earlier record if it could be found. Neander, Ch. Hist., Vol. I., p. 311.
 
Bingham could find no earlier allusion to it than that of Tertullian, though he believed it arose earlier. It must, therefore, as is generally agreed, have had its origin about the beginning of the third century.
 
Curcell?us says: “The baptism of infants in the two first centuries after Christ was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth and following ages it was generally [p. 133] received.” Inst. Christ. Religion, B. I., Ch. 12.
 
Salmasius says: “In the first two centuries no one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrines of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer.” Hist. Bapt. Suicer. Thesaur., Vol. II., p. 1136.
 
Such testimony is conclusive, and quite sufficient, though much more of a similar character might be added.
 
But observe: That when the baptism of children began, it was not that of unconscious infants at all, as is now practiced, but, as Bunsen declares, of “little growing children, from six to ten years old.” And he asserts that Tertullian “does not say one word of new-born infants.” Cyprian, an African bishop, at the close of the third century, urged the baptism of infants proper, because of the saving efficacy of the ordinance; and he is called the inventor, or father, of infant baptism. Bunsen’s Hippol. and His Age, Vol. III., pp. 192-5.
 
why did it rise?
 
There is even less difficulty in tracing the cause than in finding the origin of infant [p. 134] baptism. It originated in a perversion of Christian doctrine, and was itself the perversion of a Christian ordinance.
 
All students of ecclesiastical history know that at an early period corruptions perverted Christian faith and practice. Among these, one of the earliest was that of an undue efficacy attributed to baptism. Its sanctity was so exalted that it was believed to have power to wash away sins, and cleanse the soul for heaven. By it the sick were supposed to be prepared for death, and salvation made more certain by its efficacy. Anxious parents therefore desired their dying children to be thus prepared—“washed in the laver of regeneration,”............